Transcript Document

Backbone Organization
2013 Evaluation Report
Analysis prepared for:
August 2013
Boston | Geneva | San Francisco | Seattle | Washington
FSG.ORG
Executive Summary
FSG.ORG
Executive Summary
• Six sources of influence enable the backbones in the GCF cohort to shape and guide the work of
collective impact without formal authority: competence, commitment, neutrality, data and information,
a network, and visibility
• Several key measures can help LISC to demonstrate its contributions to the initiative: systems
change stories, stakeholder perceptions of LISC’s value, the amount of funding that has been
leveraged, and initial outcomes related to process and/or systems change impacts
• Overall, interviewees rated LISC as very effective at mobilizing funding and guiding vision and
strategy
• Interviewees identified establishing shared measurement practices as a continued area for
growth, highlighting the need to build the capacity of neighborhoods to interpret and use data, and
the need to continue working to streamline funder reporting requirements
• LISC has a strong reputation and an important connection to the national LISC organization
• LISC’s very capable staff have limited capacity, leading some interviewees to recommend
increasing capacity and developing a succession plan
• LISC is effective at brokering relationships and supporting partners and can use these skills to
bring more players to the table and to continue to strengthen the relationship with the city
• Interviewees praise LISC’s improved communications and encourage the organization to continue
working in this area
• LISC can also focus on providing additional oversight to, and building the capacity of,
neighborhoods
2
© 2013 FSG
Process Overview
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
3
© 2013 FSG
Process Overview
FSG.ORG
Interviews, Self-Assessments, and Last Year’s Report
Informed This Year’s Findings on LISC
Inputs
Findings
Backbone Leader and External Stakeholder Interviews
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kathy Schwab
Michael Cervay
Tom DiBello
Sally Duffy
Terry Grundy
Bob Igoe
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sources and measures of backbone influence,
based on common themes observed across the
GCF cohort
Robert Killins
Jeanne Schroer
Sara Sheets
Ken Smith
Chuck Winger
Kevin Wright
Completed
2012 Self-Assessment
Feedback on key roles
identified by backbone leader
Initial Elements of
2013 Self-Assessment
Feedback on key outcomes
identified by backbone leader
Feedback on additional strengths, areas for
improvement, and advice (compared with last
year’s findings, where possible)
2012 Backbone Organization
Baseline Evaluation Report
(to draw comparisons and linkages)
†
Backbone leader interviews were conducted between April 15-25, 2013; stakeholder interviews were conducted between May 20-Jun 3, 2013
4
© 2013 FSG
Backbone Influence
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
1)
Sources of influence
2)
Measures of influence
a.
Leveraged funding
b.
Indicators of initiative progress
c.
Systems change stories
d.
Stakeholder perceptions of backbone value
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
5
© 2013 FSG
Sources of Influence
FSG.ORG
We Identified Six Sources of Influence That Enable Backbones to Shape
and Guide the Work of Collective Impact Without Formal Authority
Sources of Backbone Influence
1
Competence
2
Commitment
3
Neutrality
• Technical expertise in a relevant
content area, strategic visioning and
problem-solving
• Interpersonal skills to manage
relationships
• Conceptual ability to take the bird’s
eye view and see initiative as a whole
• Track record demonstrating
dedication to the issue and/or
initiative
• Significant ongoing effort to the
initiative, inspiring confidence in
others that the backbone is
reliable and persistent
• Objectivity of having no personal
stake and no competitive
dynamic with those involved
• Inclusivity, creating safe spaces
for difficult conversations and
representing the needs of others
4
5
6
Data & Information
• Quality data and research to
understand the problem, promote
accountability, learn and improve
• Perspectives from community
members and those who stand to
directly benefit from the work
• Media channels to disseminate
information
Network
• Strong connections to crosssector players and community
members, enabling backbone to
broker and mediate relationships
between individuals and groups
• Endorsements from influential
champions
Visibility
• Awareness about the initiative
and the backbone’s
contributions among partners
and community members
• Regard for backbone and
recognition of its supportive role
(i.e. sense that backbone does
not seek to take credit)
These themes were highlighted by stakeholders throughout our
LISC interviews and are reflected in this report
Sources: FSG interviews with external stakeholders. L. K. Johnson, Exerting Influence without Authority (Harvard Management Update, December 2003). D. A. Whetten and K.
S. Cameron, Developing Management Skills: Gaining Power and Influence (New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1993).
6
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence
FSG.ORG
While There Is No Definitive Measure for Backbone Influence,
Key Inputs Can Help to Demonstrate the Backbone’s Contributions
Measures of Backbone Influence
Leveraged Funding
Indicators of Initiative
Progress
Systems Change
Stories
Stakeholder Perceptions
of Backbone Value
The amount of funding that has been leveraged or redirected
based (at least in part) to the efforts of the backbone
organization
Initial outcomes the backbone can share related to process
(e.g., # of partners involved) or systems change impacts
(e.g., legislation passed that supports initiative goals)
Stories that demonstrate shifts in the way that the community
makes decisions about policies, programs, and the allocation
of its resources — and, ultimately, in the way it delivers
services and supports its citizens and constituencies*
Observations from community members about the
importance of the backbone organization
* Systems change definition source: Comprehensive Community Initiative (CCI) Tools for Federal Staff (http://www.ccitoolsforfeds.org/systems_change.asp)
© 2013 FSG
7
Measures of Influence: Leveraged Funding and Indicators of Initiative Progress
FSG.ORG
LISC’s Leveraged Funding Amount and Indicators of Initiative
Progress Help to Define the Organization’s Influence
Leveraged Funding
Indicators of Initiative Progress
Indicator
Outcome
Example
• Leverage
Mobilize
Invested $1,248,000 in housing and facilities and retail spaces
Funding
Indicators of Initiative
Progress Invested $450,500 in federal and corporate national grants
• Increased
Partnerships
# of new investors
Added two funders to the Place Matters initiative
• Increased access
to measurement
Enhanced Data
Portal
Partnering in the funding of FACTS Matters (data portal) by providing a
$65,000 grant to add community development data for communities
• Decreased crime
statistics
Creation of new
partnership to affect
change
Multiple partners come together (police officers, business owners, CDC,
residents, and property owners) to create community safety initiatives
which results in crime reduction strategies
8
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence: Systems Change Stories
FSG.ORG
During Interviews, FSG Listened for “System Change” Stories That
Describe the Unique Ways LISC Adds Value in the Community
LISC stories highlighted during interviews
Dimensions of systems change in collective impact*
Factors and variables that support systems change:
•
Collective ownership and accountability for community
problems
•
Collection, analysis, reporting and use of quality data
•
Greater capacity of individual organizations
Indicators that systems change is occurring:
•
Use of joint governance and shared decision-making
•
Increased knowledge, skills, values and motivation among
citizens to contribute to improving the community
•
Stronger cultural competence**
•
Collaboration and alignment among cross-sector partners
who have not historically worked together
•
Alignment of existing resources to initiative goals
•
New resources leveraged to support initiative goals
•
Formal and informal policies support initiative goals
A Strong Sense of Community in a NeighborhoodDriven Plan (see slide 10)
Consensus Building Transforms Friction to
Collaboration (see slide 11)
Leveraged Funding Moves the Work Forward (see
slide 12)
* Informed by GCF cohort interviews and Comprehensive Community Initiative dimensions of systems change (http://www.ccitoolsforfeds.org/systems_change.asp). Also note
that the maturity of a backbone organization may affect the extent to which they have influenced systems change in their community
** Cultural competence defined as the ability to understand, appreciate and communicate with people whose culture and life experience differ from one’s own
9
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence: Systems Change Stories
FSG.ORG
Several Interviewees Shared Powerful Stories about the
Impact of LISC’s Work (1 of 3)
•
Increased
knowledge,
skills, values
and motivation
among citizens
to contribute to
improving the
community
LISC provided expertise and worked with the neighborhood to develop and roll-out the
Madisonville neighborhood quality life plan. The plan is an integral part of the
sustainable communities model. We hadn’t used that methodology in our work for our
first three neighborhoods, and before Kathy, if we had tried, I don’t think we would
have been successful. The rollout was at an elementary school in Madisonville. The
residents and neighborhood stakeholders were a part of the process, which
was key - it was neighborhood-driven. There was an enormous energy in the
room, and the sense of community itself – that this was their plan – really stood
out for me. I was so impressed with that. Quite frankly, I had not, until this, drank the
Kool-Aid, but I got there at that point. It was a real inflection point for me.
- Local Funder
We had more than 300 people turn out at the recreation center – for LISC and for us,
and from other community stakeholders. We discussed how our work was going to be
organized. People stayed in the gym for three hours to establish top priority
bucket lists for us to work within over the summer. When I saw that kind of
turnout - residents, businesses, banks, the city – I felt for the first time that the
community’s efforts and all the hard work was paying off.
- Community Member
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
10
“
Relevant dimension
of systems change:
“
A Strong Sense of Community in a Neighborhood-Driven Plan
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence: Systems Change Stories
FSG.ORG
Several Interviewees Shared Powerful Stories about the
Impact of LISC’s Work (2 of 3)
• Collaboration
and alignment
among crosssector partners
who have not
historically
worked together
“
Avondale is a poor African-American community just north of the University of
Cincinnati, and adjacent to the university are a number of hospitals and other
institutions. There had always had been friction between the community and those
institutions. Approximately five years ago place matters identified neighborhoods
they’d work in, and Avondale was one of them. People had tried to work in
Avondale for years and had not been successful, partially because of conflict
between residents and the institutions, and because of a lack of consensus within
the community itself. Work languished for years. Part of the reason initiatives were
not successful was because there was no one lead organization that place
matters was working with – they were working with multiple orgs. When LISC got
involved they really got into the thick of building consensus among the
community, institutions, and funders of place matters. It was the organizing
and consensus-building skills of LISC and Kathy Schwab that led to the
Avondale Comprehensive Development Organization. Within the last year and
a half, the work has really started to gel and move the Avondale community
forward.
- Local Stakeholder
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
11
“
Relevant dimension
of systems change:
Consensus Building Transforms Friction to Collaboration
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence: Systems Change Stories
FSG.ORG
Several Interviewees Shared Powerful Stories about the
Impact of LISC’s Work (3 of 3)
• New resources
leveraged to
support initiative
goals
LISC is results-oriented. It was very powerful when they brought
$200k to the table to provide capacity for my organization and another
one of our partners so that we could really do our work in an effective
manner. That is extremely critical because the investment funding
they helped us obtain made it easier for us to leverage additional
funding. It was easier to put together the $10m than that initial
$10k for operations! Without that operational funding LISC
helped us secure none of the work could have happened. The
power is their understanding of the practical considerations and what
it takes to execute a plan, and to actually get something done. That,
more than anything else, is very important. LISC has access to funds
through the national organization and they are very effectively and
proactively on top of the resources that they can access, so they can
be used locally.
- Local Nonprofit Leader
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
12
“
Relevant dimension
of systems change:
“
Leveraged Funding Moves the Work Forward
© 2013 FSG
Measures of Influence: Stakeholder Perceptions of Backbone Value
FSG.ORG
During Interviews, Stakeholders Also Highlighted
LISC’s Unique Value in the Community
If LISC ceased to exist, what would be lost?
“Empowerment and a community-driven vision.”
“Public policy and advocacy capability, as a result of their national recognition.”
“Important funding of place matters. If you lost LISC’s contribution it would be dramatic.”
“The neighborhoods that most need help would cease to have a voice at the table.”
“The geographic scope, clout, the LISC board, and a portfolio of resources for community
development - I don’t see an organization that brings all of these things to the table in combination.”
“Coordination of key investments, and different funders working together collaboratively .
“The city’s understanding of the need for predevelopment. They are now being much more
proactive. LISC has been helpful as a teacher and model.”
“A specialty in community development - they’re seen as the experts.”
“A national organization with expertise. They bring proven methodologies - the quality
of life plan, the sustainable communities plan, etc..”
“Communication skills to tell the story.”
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
13
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles and Outcomes
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
1)
Roles
2)
Outcomes
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
14
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
LISC Requested Feedback from Interviewees on Targeted Roles
• Of the six backbone roles, LISC selected four roles, for feedback:
– Guiding Vision & Strategy
– Establish Shared Measurement Practices
– Advance Policy
– Mobilize Funding
• For these four roles, FSG asked interviewees to rate LISC’s effectiveness on a
scale of 1 to 7 and to explain their rating
• Overall, interviewees rated LISC as very effective in mobilizing funding and
guiding vision and strategy
• Interviewees identified establishing shared measurement practices as an area
for growth
• Note that with only 11 interviews, these findings should be used for
directional guidance but should not be considered conclusive
15
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
Interviewees Ranked LISC’s Effectiveness with Mobilizing
Funding Very Highly, as a 6.5 out of 7 (n=11)†
This is one of LISC’s strong capabilities. They can bring the
resources. With the magnitude of these issues, it takes a lot.
I personally don’t see any gaps – what I see is creativity.
LISC partnered with the United Way to get social innovation
funding, which is one of the six or seven initiatives in our
administration.
Average Effectiveness Rating for LISC (n=11)
7
7
7
7
6.5
6.1
6
5
Kathy’s been great at leveraging national LISC resources
which is due to her credibility. She is recognized by national
LISC leadership as one of their leaders. Above all, she’s
been good at getting public and private players to work
on things together and bring dollars to the table.
7
5
5.8
5
4.7
4.5
4
3
2
They are excellent at getting funding. Without them we
wouldn’t exist. We’re small, but if we didn’t have funding
from LISC, I’d probably still be part-time contractor!
2
1
Mobilize
Funding
We’re getting gobs more resources than we were before (and
in a time when it’s not easy to get money). It started by
gaining the full confidence of LISC national and getting
more money from them, but now it has moved far beyond
that, to banks, and even some public sector dollars.
Guiding
Vision &
Strategy
Advance
Policy
Establishng
Shared
Measurement
Highest rating given by an interviewee
Key:
Average of all interviewee ratings
Lowest rating given by an interviewee
† LISC
received a 2012 ranking of 4.4 out of 5 (n=29) for mobilizing funding. While the 2012 data cannot be compared with the 2013 findings on an “apples to
apples” basis due to the use of different scales, both years’ data indicate strong performance.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
16
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
Interviewees Feel LISC Is Effective at Guiding Vision & Strategy ,
Ranking This Area a 6.1 out of 7 (n=11)†
Average Effectiveness Rating for LISC (n=11)
[Guiding vision and strategy] is a very good and
important part of what local LISC is now doing for us
under current leadership. Kathy is able to see the
forest and trees simultaneously. She really has a longterm vision of where we can go together as a
community in an aligned way around comprehensive
community development. Kathy’s extremely
effective at promoting that vision and helping
others to understand, as well as fitting
appropriate activities into that vision. She also
gets the resources to make vision implementable.
7
7
7
7
7
6.5
6.1
6
5
5
5.8
5
4.7
4.5
4
3
2
I think they’re definitely effective at guiding vision
and strategy and are becoming even more
effective. They’re looking at building capacity in
certain neighborhoods before they jump in with big
projects. They make sure there is community
engagement, which I think is a critical foundation in
terms of understanding the issues and needs so
neighborhoods will take ownership.
2
1
Mobilize
Funding
Guiding
Vision &
Strategy
Advance
Policy
Establishng
Shared
Measurement
Highest rating given by an interviewee
Key:
Average of all interviewee ratings
Lowest rating given by an interviewee
† LISC
received a 2012 ranking of 4.2 out of 5 (n=29) for guiding vision and strategy. While the 2012 data cannot be compared with the 2013 findings on an
“apples to apples” basis due to the use of different scales, both years’ data indicate strong performance.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
17
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
Interviewees Recognize that Advancing Policy Is a Challenging Task and
Praise LISC’s Work in This Area, Ranking Them a 5.8 out of 7 (n=11)†
Average Effectiveness
Rating for LISC (n=11)
7
7
7
7
7
6.5
6.1
6
5
5
5.8
5
Kathy has been a significant contributor in engaging the city
of Cincinnati so that they start focusing on the same
neighborhoods that we focus on and adopt methodologies
that we know are successful – like housing strategy. Kathy
does a great job of that. She has great connections from her
prior career. Policy can be quite frustrating and
challenging, but there’s been great progress made.
4.7
4.5
I admire that [Kathy’s] approach is realistically
opportunistic – she knows how to spot emergent
opportunities related to policy change and knows when
the time is right and the stars line up.
4
3
2
2
1
Mobilize
Funding
Guiding
Vision &
Strategy
Advance
Policy
Establishng
Shared
Measurement
Highest rating given by an interviewee
Key:
Average of all interviewee ratings
Lowest rating given by an interviewee
† LISC
Kathy is now initiating policy efforts. For example, she wrote
a recent Op Ed related to the city’s budget and got key
individuals to sign on to it. The Op Ed helped. It changed
some of what was being proposed for the city budget.
Under Kathy, LISC has become more focused on policy
and systemic issues, whether city or state. They’ve
started to convene working groups on topics and have been
very good at that. If there’s room for improvement, it’s to
continue to build relationships – at the state house, etc.
received a 2012 ranking of 3.7 out of 5 (n=29) for advancing policy.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
18
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
While Stakeholders Recognize LISC’s Efforts Related to Shared Measurement
(Rated 4.7 out of 7), This Is an Area for Continued Improvement (n=10)†
Average Effectiveness Rating for LISC
(n=10)
7
7
7
7
7
6.5
6.1
6
5
5
5.8
5
4.7
4.5
4
Before LISC became the intermediary, we had previous
evaluation regimes that also dealt with shared
measurement – especially around community indicators
and program performance. Unfortunately, that had grown
too elaborate and had become cumbersome, partly
because it was put into hands of an evaluation consulting
firm and this particular one had tendency to overelaborate
on things until eyes glaze over. To Kathy’s credit, she’s
been working hard to streamline [the measures], but
we have ways to go.
3
2
2
1
Mobilize
Funding
Guiding
Vision &
Strategy
Advance
Policy
Establishng
Shared
Measurement
It’s probably one of the most difficult challenges we’ve
faced in terms of community development, collectively –
place matters and also with LISC. It’s very hard to
measure community development and to get
everyone to agree.
I think LISC is doing best they can but there are
definitely ways this can be improved.
Highest rating given by an interviewee
Key:
Average of all interviewee ratings
Lowest rating given by an interviewee
† LISC
received a 2012 ranking of 3.8 out of 5 (n=29) for establishing shared measurement. While the 2012 data cannot be compared with the 2013 findings
on an “apples to apples” basis due to the use of different scales, the performance is generally comparable.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
19
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Roles
FSG.ORG
Recommendations for Shared Measurement Improvement Focus on the
Use of Data and on Streamlining Funder Reporting Requirements
Stakeholders
highlighted the
need to build the
capacity of
neighborhoods to
interpret and
use data (n=2)
LISC and CBI have helped by providing TA to communities [related to measurement].
It’s still very much a work in progress. I can’t point to real breakthroughs here. The
more established organizations do it better. They have evolved to learn to use the
measurement to inform their work and get additional resources. With our
communities, they think it’s just for the funder and have not yet used data to
inform their work. LISC can do more to help communities do this.
We collect a lot of data and report data, but I think, as is true in this sector,
interpretation and analysis is where there needs to be improvements.
We’ve had a lot of pain and anguish around evaluation. A lot of staff time being
burned up on entering data and putting it in reports that no one ever looks at.
Funders have short attention spans. LISC has worked to try to improve them.
LISC has made these more useful.
I feel like there is a lot of time wasted on the [place matters and funder] reporting.
LISC I think is doing the best they can but there are definitely ways that this can be
improved. There is an overwhelming amount that I’m expected to report on. It’s not
the mission of my organization to track other people’s data. I feel like we get lots of
reports thrown at us with little help explaining how we measure all of this.
While progress has
been made to
streamline funder
reporting
requirements,
additional effort
may be needed
(n=3)
These findings may suggest that more work can be done to enhance stakeholder
ownership of the metrics being used in place matters neighborhoods
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
20
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Outcomes
FSG.ORG
LISC Also Requested Feedback from Interviewees on
Targeted Outcomes Selected from the Backbone Logic Model
• LISC selected 10 outcomes for feedback from the backbone logic model
developed in 2012 (see slides 40-45 in Appendix)
• For these ten outcomes, FSG asked interviewees to rate initiative progress
and LISC’s influence on scales of 1 to 3 and provide additional commentary
• Across these ten outcomes, there was consensus that:
– There has been significant progress and significant LISC influence in
the coordination of partner efforts and in providing community
members with the opportunity to learn about and engage in the place
matters initiative
– More progress may be needed to ensure that data for shared indicators
are regularly monitored
• Note that with only 10 interviews, these findings should be used for
directional guidance but should not be considered conclusive
21
© 2013 FSG
Findings on Key Outcomes
FSG.ORG
While the Response Range Is Limited, the More Extreme Ratings Point
to What Interviewees Deem Most Encouraging and Concerning
LISC’s strength as
a convener
enhances
partners’ ability to
coordinate (see
slide 27)
Improvement in
communications
has likely
contributed to
community
awareness (see
slide 28)
As noted in the
effectiveness
ratings,
measurement is a
key area for
continued growth
(see slide 19)
Backbone Outcome
Initiative
Progress†
LISC’s
Influence‡
Sample
Size
Partners coordinate their efforts and work together in order to
improve quality of life for place matters residents
2.9
2.8
n=10
Community members have the opportunity to learn about
and engage in the place matters initiative
2.8
2.7
n=10
Networks of partners form to develop and implement strategies
to improve the quality of life in place matters communities
2.8
2.6
n=9
Funding is secured or redirected to support the initiative
2.6
2.8
n=10
Key messages and outcomes are communicated to raise
awareness for the initiative
2.6
2.7
n=10
Key players who are critical to achieving change participate
in the initiative
2.6
2.6
n=10
Partners pool their resources in ways that help to improve
quality of life for place matters residents
2.6
2.6
n=9
New partnerships form by those who have not worked together
before
2.6
2.4
n=9
Partners communicate with one another and are knowledgeable
about each other’s work
2.5
2.5
n=10
Data for shared indicators are regularly monitored by those
involved in the work
2.4
2.3
n=7
† Initiative
‡ LISC’s
progress was rated on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 = little to no progress, 2 = some progress, and 3 = significant progress
influence was rated on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 = little to no influence, 2 = some influence, 3 = significant influence
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
22
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
1)
National Resources and Credibility
2)
Leadership and Staff Capacity
3)
Relationships, Support, & Guidance
4)
Communications
5)
Building Capacity of Neighborhoods
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
23
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes
FSG.ORG
Interviewees Brought Up Several Other Key Themes Related to
the Initiative and LISC’s Role
• National Resources and Credibility
– LISC has a strong reputation and an important connection to the national LISC
organization
• Leadership and Staff Capacity
– LISC’s very capable staff have limited capacity, leading some interviewees to
recommend increasing capacity and developing a succession plan
• Support, Guidance & Relationships
– LISC is effective at brokering relationships and supporting partners and can use these
skills to bring more players to the table and to continue to strengthen the relationship
with the city
• Communications
– Interviewees praise LISC’s improved communications and encourage the organization
to continue working in this area
• Building Capacity of Neighborhoods
– LISC should focus on providing additional oversight to, and building the capacity of,
neighborhoods
24
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes: Reputation and National Resources
FSG.ORG
LISC Effectively Leverages a Strong Reputation and
Connection to the National Organization and Resources
Sample Quotes
LISC has a strong
reputation and
credibility that help
the organization to
be effective (n=5)
LISC’s success over the last few years has given it credibility to use in coordinating and
connecting. The city sees the work that LISC has been doing with place matters, as well as its
lending beyond place matter, and has been both working with LISC and aligning to its model.
Credibility is key.
We were able to [connect with key players to do our work] all because of [LISC’s] reputation in
the city council. Knowing that we’re working with LISC, gives a larger comfort level to council
members to freely engage us.
LISC provides quite a bit of funding from national sources. They bring resources to us from
LISC national, and have been very good at that.
The connection to
the national LISC
organization brings
resources and best
practices (n=8)
The expertise and connections LISC makes to the CDCs are extremely helpful – within the city,
region, and nationally – they’re able to bring national best practices to each neighborhood
and help us to grow our capacity. That is extremely helpful for us.
The National LISC sees Kathy as one of the best LISC directors in the country. They have great
confidence in her. As a results, lots of LISC resources come our way.
We have always looked outside the community for resources. LISC provides a conduit to
national’s best thoughts and people. A lot of it is being looped in to the conversation going on in
New York or Los Angeles. That’s something the community would miss and we would miss it.
Every city that wants to be vibrant needs to look outside of themselves (Cincinnati). LISC helps
with that. National provides resources, training, and best practices.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
25
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes: Staff Capacity
FSG.ORG
LISC’s Very Capable Staff Have Limited Capacity, Leading Some Interviewees
to Recommend Increasing Capacity and Developing a Succession Plan
Sample Quotes
Kathy is a very
strong and skilled
leader (n=7)
LISC staff are
effective and
action-oriented
(n=6)
However, LISC’s
capacity is limited,
leading some to
recommend hiring
staff with targeted
experience and
developing a
succession plan
(n=4)
Kathy is someone that can execute a plan and get things done. She can work with lots of
different partners and nudge people. She has great relationships, and, just as importantly, is well
respected within LISC national because of the work she’s done and her leadership.
Kathy has just been outstanding. She is well-respected, well-regarded, grounded, balanced,
respectful, and dedicated - an outstanding servant leader.
They have a very effective staff. I’m very impressed with the current team. They are very
action-oriented. When we have meetings and conversations, there are actions that come from it
and we move projects forward together. We’re doing stuff – not just sitting around talking about it.
[The staff] are young and energetic. This is the best staff that LISC has had. The previous groups
weren’t as engaged or effective. I like that Kathy has empowered them and they are off and
running. They don’t have to always “check with Kathy” and are really on top of the work.
They do as much as they can with what they’ve got – they don’t have a lot of people here. There’s
only so much you can do with Kathy and Patrick, who is very new, and a few other support
people. LISC could do a lot more if they had more people. They have the talent, but I do think
they could benefit from maybe one more professional - perhaps someone capable of executing
specific projects.
I’m concerned about the depth of the staff. There’s a whole bunch of newbies behind her.
[Kathy] could use depth in the area of real estate finance.
It’s going to be very difficult to replace Kathy. They need to start focusing on a succession
plan. Not that she would leave soon, but she’s got a gap in the middle of her organization.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
26
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes: Relationship Broker
FSG.ORG
As a Supportive and Effective Relationship Broker, LISC Can Continue to
Bring More Players to the Table and Grow Its Relationship with the City
Sample Quotes
LISC is an effective
relationship broker,
acting as the
“glue” between
stakeholders (n=9)
LISC provides
effective support
and guidance (n=7)
LISC can continue
to broaden the
types of players at
the table (n=4)
LISC should
continue to build
its relationship
with the city (n=4)
LISC is key to everything we’re doing and is always sitting at the table.
The word partnership keeps coming to mind. LISC and Kathy are so good at bringing other
people to the table and having them commit to partnerships.
They play the role of connector – they’re the glue or the “go to” entity in the community
development space that forges relationships.
The guidance and TA that LISC provides are very important. The staff has helped the CDC
grow their capacity.
LISC provides major moral support. Moral support, in terms of the ability to persevere and to
do some very difficult things, as well as personal and professional guidance.
There is still un-mined territory [in terms of getting more people involved] – for instance with
county government and the business community.
We have further to go, particularly on the public sector side. Some of banks are still lurking
in the weeds and not participating, and some major companies could be more involved.
The city may be at the table but it doesn’t feel like they’re participating at the level they
should be. I don’t think we’ve ever gotten them as a full partner.
LISC should continue to work on developing partnerships, particularly with the public and
private sector, keeping up its work with the city.
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
27
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes: Communications
FSG.ORG
Interviewees Praise LISC’s Improved Communications and
Encourage the Organization to Continue Working in This Area
Sample Quotes
Interviewees
praised LISC’s
strong
improvement in
communications
(n=4)
Stakeholders
encourage LISC to
work on
communicating
effectively with the
business
community and
leveraging social
media (n=4)
The biggest improvement has been in the area of communications. They have been
getting stories about the place matters projects published and sending them out electronically. I
have heard from others how much they appreciate those stories. They were not as strong [in
this area in the past], but have really improved over the last year.
[In the past] we hadn’t done a good job of communicating the story. Now that LISC has moved to
the sole role for leading the project. LISC is about as good as I’ve seen in terms of communicating
success and taking credit for it. Since LISC has taken this on and has a dedicated person
assigned to communication, the communication has increased exponentially in terms of
quantity and quality. Going down the road, this will be critical to our success.
I think our next step is to figure out how to connect with the business community. We’ve got great
connections within the nonprofit sector and with the city. We haven’t gotten our story told to
the business community at the level it needs to be told.
We need to continue doing a better job of tooting our own horn – not just LISC but also other
partners along with LISC.
An area we could improve, in terms of data, is building some social media communication –
what’s needed from a community standpoint is ongoing support. We have some expertise, but we
have lower penetration when it comes to internet and social media. Developing other ways to
share data and information with the entire community would be beneficial. One
recommendation is to look at CPS – it’s turned to SMS and text messaging. How do we
build a system that communities can dial into for ongoing communication and support?
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
28
© 2013 FSG
Additional Themes: Building Neighborhood Capacity
FSG.ORG
External Stakeholder Noted An Opportunity for LISC to Further
Build the Capacity of Neighborhoods and Provide Oversight
Sample Quotes
I would suggest LISC go right down the community vision plan and check in with the lead
agencies to get a clear sense of where [the agencies] are with the work. I can check off the ones
where I think they’re floundering, but that’s just my guess. So go back to the vision plan and
the agencies and talk about where they are and how LISC can help them.
Stakeholders
highlighted the
need to help build
the capacity of
neighborhoods
and provide
oversight (n=6)
Continue to nurture the development of the CDCs and help move Tier Two’s to Tier One’s, and
Tier Three’s to Tier Two’s.
Above all, LISC can help continue to provide training and build capacity for the staff of the
CDCs. This will be a critical element moving forward. What we’re talking about is high risk – we
need good strong people that are doing all the elements of the work: community engagement,
physical development, etc.
LISC could share the influence and help us make connections to get stuff done.
I think it’s about continuing to strengthen the theory of change approach in the neighborhoods.
One of the neighborhoods has a lot of issues to address, and the tendency is to put too many
things on the plate at one time. LISC can help make sure that neighborhoods have the
capacity to do this, including helping them to prioritize and not do everything at once.
While LISC may have limited time to provide neighborhood-specific support,
these findings suggest that it could be worthwhile to provide targeted oversight
to neighborhoods in order to enhance support and accountability
Source: 2013 LISC External Stakeholder Interviews
29
© 2013 FSG
Summary of Implications
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
30
© 2013 FSG
Summary of Implications
FSG.ORG
Summary of Implications
• Overall, interviewees reinforced LISC’s effectiveness as a backbone organization
and encouraged LISC to keep up the good work
• A few pieces of advice were raised for consideration:
– LISC can grow in the area of shared measurement by continuing to
streamline indicators and measures (as well as funder reporting requirements,
where possible), and building the capacity of neighborhoods to collect and use
data
– It may be useful to consider how to effectively increase staff capacity and
develop a leadership succession plan
– LISC can use it’s strong relationship brokering skills to bring new and diverse
players to the table (e.g., the business community, additional public sector
players)
– Build upon existing progress in order to effectively communicate with the
business community and to leverage social media
– Help to build the capacity of place matters neighborhoods and
provide targeted oversight to enhance support and accountability
31
© 2013 FSG
Appendix
FSG.ORG
Table of Contents
I.
Process overview
II.
Backbone influence
III. Findings on key roles and outcomes identified by LISC
IV. Additional themes highlighted by interviewees
V.
Summary of implications
VI. Appendix
32
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Backbone Self-Assessment
FSG.ORG
Synthesis of Initial 2013 Self-Assessment Components
Completed at the beginning of 2013
Goal
Support ongoing
work in place
matters
neighborhoods
Expand
comprehensive,
place-based
support network
into new
communities using
tiered approach
Status
Beginning of Year
 Place Matters is
starting year 7 of the
initiative
 Place Matters has
expanded to include 2
more neighborhoods
 Collaboration with City
government has
improved; strategies
have been discussed;
Goal *
Beginning of Year


Continue Bold Goal alignment

Help neighborhoods identify and work on
theory of change

More funds are leveraged

Partnerships expand to pursue common
agenda for continuous improvement

Partner with Strive and other backbones to
support neighborhood goals

Partners mover toward sustainability

Continue to expand public and private
funders for the initiative

Help existing and new communities work on
their quality of life plans to implement goals;

Support QOL plans in all neighborhoods

Connect neighborhood strategies/goals to
funding sources

Help tier 1 and 2 neighborhoods achieve
capacity to work on a common vision

Work w/ public sector leaders to promote
common vision/collective strategy for
n’bhoods

Work to save LIHTC and NMTC at the
federal level;

Work w/ policy partners to promote statewide initiatives for community change
Neighborhood Indicators project is accessible 
by communities
Help local communities with their housing
strategies

Support communication efforts to tell the
neighborhood story

Assist communities with capacity to identify
goals/vision tier 1 and 2 neighborhoods

Leverage public dollars in PM
neighborhoods;

public and private funders share common
goals and strategies for CI in neighborhood
revitalization
Community
Development
 Focused and
Systems
leveraged funded has

Improvement at the
become a necessity as
federal, state and
well as a priority
local level

 Public policy is
elevated as critically
important by partners
Outcomes in neighborhoods continue to
improve;
Key Actions
During the Year

Public policy agenda is set and impacts
quality of life in communities
Housing strategies are completed in multiple
challenged neighborhoods
* LISC will report on progress against these goals at the end of 2013
33

Work for dedicated Housing Court in
Hamilton County
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Backbone Self-Assessment
FSG.ORG
Synthesis of 2013 and 2012 Self-Assessment Components
Related to the Roles of the Backbone
Self-Rating:
Effectiveness
(2012)
Percent Time
on Activity
(2012)
Percent Time
on Activity
(2013)
Self-Rating:
Effectiveness*
(2013)
Guide Vision and
Strategy
Very
20%
20%
*
Support Aligned
Activities
Very
30%
30%
*
Somewhat
10%
10%
*
Build Public Will
Needs
Improvement
15%
15%
*
Advance Policy
N/A** or
Somewhat
10%
10%
*
Very
15%
15%
*
Backbone Role
Establish Shared
Measurement Practices
Mobilize Funding
* LISC will provide this rating at the end of the year
** LISC did “not have this in the organizational work plan” and relied “on partners to advance policy”
Sources: LISC’s 2012 Self-Assessment; Initial 2013 self-assessment
34
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Theory of Change
FSG.ORG
Common Elements Found in a Theory of Change
for All Backbone Organizations
Why we collectively
are taking
action
(Needs /
Assumptions and
Goals)
Early indications that
our activities will lead
to change
(Backbone
Outcomes)
What we are doing to
address the issue
(Activities)
35
The change we
collectively hope to
see if we are
successful
(Initiative
Outcomes)
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Theory of Change
FSG.ORG
Why We Collectively Are Taking Action
Needs / Assumptions and Goals
• No single program, organization, or institution acting in isolation can
bring about large-scale social change on their own
• Current systems are fragmented and inadequate and thus work is often
done in silos
• Community level change requires the concerted efforts of the many
players who can contribute to better system performance to band together
around a common agenda
• A backbone organization is needed to mobilize collective cross-sector
actors to achieve goals
36
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Theory of Change
FSG.ORG
What We Are Doing to Address the Issue
Activities
Guide Vision and
Strategy
• Build a common understanding of the problem that needs to be addressed
• Provide strategic guidance to develop a common agenda; serve as a thought leader /
standard bearer for the initiative
Support Aligned
Activities
Ensure mutually reinforcing activities take place, i.e.,
• Coordinate and facilitate partners’ continuous communication and collaborative work
• Convene partners and key external stakeholders
• Catalyze or incubate new initiatives or collaborations
• Provide technical assistance to build management and administrative capacity (e.g.,
coaching and mentoring, as well as providing training and fundraising support)
• Create paths for, and recruit, new partners so they become involved
• Seek out opportunities for alignment with other efforts
Establish Shared
Measurement
Practices
• Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data
• Catalyze or develop shared measurement systems
• Provide technical assistance for building partners’ data capacity
Build Public Will
Build public will, consensus and commitment:
• Frame the problem to create a sense of urgency and articulate a call to action
• Support community member engagement activities
• Produce and manage communications (e.g., news releases, reports)
Advance Policy
Advocate for an aligned policy agenda
Mobilize Funding
Mobilize and align public and private funding to support initiative’s goals
37
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Key Backbone Outcomes Established in 2012
FSG.ORG
Key Backbone Outcomes Established in 2012
Guide Vision and
Strategy
•
•
•
•
Partners accurately describe the common agenda
Partners publicly discuss / advocate for common agenda goals
Partners’ individual work is aligned with common agenda
Board members and key leaders look to backbone organization for initiative support, strategic
guidance and leadership
Support Aligned
Activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Partners articulate their role in the initiative
Relevant stakeholders are engaged in the initiative
Partners communicate and coordinate efforts regularly, with, and independently of, backbone
Partners report increasing levels of trust with one another
Partners increase scope / type of collaborative work
Partners improve quality of their work
Partners improve efficiency of their work
Partners feel supported and recognized in their work
Establish Shared
Measurement
Practices
•
•
•
•
•
Shared data system is in development
Partners understand the value of shared data
Partners have robust / shared data capacity
Partners make decisions based on data
Partners utilize data in a meaningful way
Build Public Will
•
•
•
•
Community members are aware of the issue(s)
Community members express support for the initiative
Community members feel empowered to engage in the issue(s)
Community members take action
Advance Policy
• Target audiences (e.g., influencers and policymakers) are aware of the initiative
• Target audiences advocate for changes to the system aligned with initiative goals
• Public policy is aligned with initiative goals
Mobilize Funding
• Funders ask nonprofits to align to initiative goals
• Funders redirect funds to support initiative goals
• New resources from public and private sources are being contributed to partners and initiative
38
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
Definitions for Key Terms Used in the Logic Model
Issue: Problem or need in the community that the initiative seeks to address
Initiative: Collective impact project supported by the backbone organization through which
partners work to address a specific problem in the community
Common agenda: Shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem
and an explicit goal for the initiative
Partners: Organizations or individuals across sectors who are engaged in the initiative and seek
to achieve the common agenda
Individual Providers: Stakeholder organizations affecting initiative outcomes, which may or
may not directly collaborate with the intermediary organization
Funders: Organizations that fund either the intermediary organization, individual partners,
partner organizations, or the initiative at large
39
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Guiding Vision and Strategy…
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
We Guide Vision
and Strategy
as we:
Build a common
understanding
of the problem
that needs to be
addressed
Provide strategic
guidance to
develop a
common agenda;
serve as a
thought leader /
standard bearer
for the initiative
* Repeated for other backbone roles
• Key partners critical to
achieving change across
sectors are identified,
educated on the
issue/initiative, and
invited to participate*
• Steering committee is
created to provide
strategic guidance to the
initiative
• Common agenda is
established
• Networks of partners
form to develop and
implement strategies for
achieving key elements of
the common agenda
(networks may include a
funders group and/or
policy group)*
• Partners are
knowledgeable about
the issue and about
effective strategies for
addressing the issue
• Key partners critical to
achieving change
participate in the
initiative*
• Partners look to the
backbone and
steering committee
for strategic guidance
40
Intermediate
Outcomes
• Partners’ work is
aligned with common
agenda*
• Partners take
ownership of the
initiative and feel
accountable for
achieving the
common agenda*
• Partners publicly
discuss and
advocate for the
importance of the
common agenda
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Supporting Aligned Activities…
We Support
Aligned
Activities as we:
Coordinate and
facilitate
partners’
communication
and collaboration
Convene
Catalyze or
incubate
Provide technical
assistance
Create paths for,
and recruit, new
partners
Seek out
opportunities for
alignment
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
• Key partners critical to
achieving change across
sectors are identified,
educated on the
issue/initiative, and
invited to participate*
• Networks of partners
form to develop and
implement strategies for
achieving key elements
of the common agenda
(networks may include a
funders group and/or
policy group)*
• Training, coaching
and/or other capacity
building opportunities
are provided to partners
(including those related
to using data)*
* Repeated for other backbone roles
• Key partners critical to achieving
change participate and
understand their role in the
initiative*
• Partners communicate with one
another and are knowledgeable
about each other’s work
• Partners trust one another
• Partners coordinate their
efforts and work together
within and across sectors
Intermediate
Outcomes
• Partners’ work is
aligned with the
common agenda*
• Partner organizations’
infrastructures
support initiative
outcomes
• Partners develop
innovative ways of
collaborating and
new approaches to
advance the initiative
• Partners have the knowledge
and skills to be effective and
efficient at contributing to the
achievement of the common
agenda
• Partners feel supported and
recognized in their work (by the
backbone and others)
41
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Establishing Shared
Measurement Practices…
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
We Establish
Shared
Measurement
Practices as we:
Collect, analyze,
interpret, report
data
Catalyze or
develop shared
measurement
systems
Provide technical
assistance for
building partners’
data capacity
* Repeated for other backbone roles
• Shared indicators are
identified
• Data are collected, analyzed
and reported in a way that
makes it accessible and
actionable for a diverse array
of stakeholders
• Data for shared
indicators are
regularly monitored,
trends are reported,
areas for improvement
are identified, and
successes are
celebrated
• Key messages and
outcomes are
communicated (using data)
to raise public awareness
about the issue and generate
support for the initiative*
• Partners recognize the
value of shared data
for learning,
improvement,
accountability and
advocacy
Intermediate
Outcomes
• A shared data
system is
developed to
support the initiative
• Partners use data
to make decisions
and inform their
work
• Training, coaching and/or
other capacity building
opportunities are provided to
help partners learn how to
interpret and use data*
42
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Building Public Will…
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
We Build Public
Will as we:
Frame the problem
to create a sense of
urgency and
articulate a call to
action
Support community
member
engagement
activities
Produce and
manage
communications
* Repeated for other backbone roles
• Key messages and
outcomes are
communicated (using
data) to raise public
awareness about the
issue and generate
support for the initiative*
• Key partners critical to
achieving change –
including community
members directly affected
by the issue – are
identified, educated on
the issue/initiative, and
invited to participate*
• Community members
have access to a variety
opportunities to learn
about and engage in the
initiative
• Partners and community
members (including
influencers,
policymakers, and
funders) are aware of the
issue and of the initiative*
• Partners and community
members (including
influencers,
policymakers, and
funders) are informed
and knowledgeable
about the initiative and
issues*
Intermediate
Outcomes
• Community members are
engaged and contribute
to the work of the initiative
• Community members feel
that their voices are
heard and reflected in the
work of the initiative
• Partners and community
members (including
influencers,
policymakers, and
funders) are supportive
of the initiative*
43
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Advancing Policy…
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
We Advance
Policy as we:
Advocate for
an aligned
policy
agenda
• Key partners critical to
achieving change
across sectors –
including influencers
and policymakers – are
identified, educated on
the issue/initiative, and
invited to participate*
• A policy agenda
is created
Intermediate
Outcomes
• Key partners critical to
influencing policymakers
participate and understand
their role in achieving the
policy agenda*
• Influencers, and
policymakers
advocate for key policy
changes aligned with
the common agenda
• Influencers and policymakers
are aware of the issue and of
the initiative*
• Policies change in line
with initiative
• Influencers and policymakers
are informed and
knowledgeable about the
initiative and issues*
• Influencers and policymakers
are supportive of the initiative*
* Repeated for other backbone roles
44
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Logic Model
FSG.ORG
A Backbone Organization May Describe Its Progress toward Outputs,
Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes of Mobilizing Resources…
Short-term
Outcomes
Outputs
We Mobilize
Resources as
we:
Mobilize and
align public and
private
resources to
support
initiative’s
goals
• Key partners
critical to achieving
change across
sectors – including
funders – are
identified,
educated on the
issue/initiative, and
invited to
participate*
• Funders are aware of the issue
and of the initiative*
• Funders are informed and
knowledgeable about the initiative
and issues*
Intermediate
Outcomes
• Philanthropic and
public resources are
aligned to the goals
of the initiative
• Funders are supportive of the
initiative*
• New resources are secured
and/or existing resources are
redirected to support the initiative
• Partner organizations pool their
resources in ways that help to
achieve initiative goals
• Funders request that grantees
align their work to initiative goals
(e.g., by using shared indicators,
participating in networks, etc)
* Repeated for other backbone roles
45
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: Theory of Change
FSG.ORG
The Change We Collectively Hope to See if We Are Successful
Initiative Outcomes
Partner level
• Individual providers are more effective
• Partner organizations do their work sustainably
• Partners collaborate independently in support of the initiative goals
Initiative level
• Initiative is increasingly having a direct benefit on community members
through provision of services, resources and capacity building
• Improvements within the system are occurring
Community level
• Progress towards achieving initiative goals at the community level
• Progress towards achieving long-term, system-level change
46
© 2013 FSG
APPENDIX: 2013 Interview Questions
FSG.ORG
2013 LISC Stakeholder Interview Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Please briefly describe your relationship with LISC and place matters.
Think about a time when LISC was influencing real change in your community – when you felt excited and inspired by their work and could see
incredible value in what they were doing. Tell us about this experience. What was the situation? Who was there? What were the key factors that made
this experience possible or that made LISC effective?
If LISC ceased to exist, what would be lost? Why? What is it about LISC that enables it to offer value in a way that is unique from other organizations
in the community?
Please indicate how effective you feel LISC has been in playing the following roles on a scale of 1-7, where 1 = not at all effective, and 7 =
extremely effective.
a.
Guiding vision and strategy (e.g., building common understanding of the problem, provide strategic guidance)
b.
Establishing shared measurement practices (e.g., collecting, interpreting, and reporting data, developing shared measurements systems,
providing technical assistance to build partners data capacity)
c.
Advancing policy (e.g., advocating for an aligned policy agenda)
d.
Mobilizing funding (e.g., mobilizing and aligning funding to support initiative goals)
What do you feel has been critical to making LISC more and/or less effective in playing the roles listed above?
Are there other roles that LISC currently plays or should play in the future that are vital to the success of this collaborative initiative?
To what extent do you feel the following outcomes have been achieved (1 = little to no progress, 2 = some progress, and 3 = significant progress)? If
you feel that progress has been made (i.e. you responded with a 2 or 3), then to what extent do you feel LISC has influenced this progress (1 = they
have had little to no influence, 2 = they have had some influence, 3 = they have had a significant influence)?
a.
Networks of partners form to develop and implement strategies to improve the quality of life in place matters communities
b.
New partnerships form by those who have not worked together before
c.
Key players who are critical to achieving change participate in the initiative
d.
Partners communicate with one another and are knowledgeable about each other’s work
e.
Partners coordinate their efforts and work together in order to improve quality of life for place matters residents
f.
Data for shared indicators are regularly monitored by those involved in the work
g.
Key messages and outcomes are communicated to raise awareness for the initiative
h.
Community members have the opportunity to learn about and engage in the place matters initiative
i.
Funding is secured or redirected to support the initiative
j.
Partners pool their resources in ways that help to improve quality of life for place matters residents
For outcomes where little to no progress has been made, what do you feel LISC can do to help advance the work?
What do you feel are the greatest challenges when it comes to growing the skills of the region’s current and future workforce? What is most likely to
contribute to or inhibit the success of this initiative?
If you were asked to be a strategic advisor to LISC, what advice would you give them? What is the single greatest thing they can do to ensure that
employers have the talent they need to compete, and people have the skills they need to get good jobs and advance in their careers?
47
© 2013 FSG